On Jul 5, 9:44 pm, thermo thermo therm...@gmail.com wrote:
hi,
I am not very much into string theory but i liked the paper, it was
pretty much self-contained for me, a computer-scientist, .
On the other side, It seems that the main conclusions are extracted
from the Löwenheim–Skolem
The effects of have clones is interesting, though, regardless of the
sapping strength notion. You would have reason to worry about being
killed if there were clones and then a shell game was played with
you being mixed up with the clones, and then all of the yous were
killed except one. All of
But of course you would worry just as much if the clone were replaced
by a zombie... I guess that gets back to the distinction between
first person and third person.
On Feb 11, 9:05 pm, Tom Caylor daddycay...@msn.com wrote:
The effects of have clones is interesting, though, regardless
Hi, Bardia. Welcome, although I haven't participated much here myself
lately. I've been too busy following my heart, although these
discussions also do touch on something down deep for me. I'll comment
briefly off the top of my head, but hopefully from my heart.
On Jan 23, 4:23 pm,
Bruno,
Just coming at this after not thinking about it much. Sometimes
that's an advantage, but sometimes it results in forgetting pertinent
points that were understood before. So if it's the latter, I hope you
forgive me.
Taking two of your statements and trying to synthesize them, first
I posted a comment to this article:
According to this article, the best we can do is to VIRTUALLY CONFIRM
something. But since reality is VIRTUAL, according to this VIRTUAL
CONFIRMATION, is not VIRTUAL CONFIRMATION equivalent, in reality, to
CONFIRMATION?
On Nov 22, 6:45 pm, Colin Hales [EMAIL
On Nov 23, 4:29 pm, Colin Hales [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
According to this article, the best we can do is to VIRTUALLY CONFIRM
something. But since reality is VIRTUAL, according to this VIRTUAL
CONFIRMATION, is not VIRTUAL CONFIRMATION equivalent, in reality, to
CONFIRMATION?
by the way
doesn't make it false.
I'll have to think about this more, or maybe it can be brought to
light through conversation.
Tom
On Nov 9, 9:08 am, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 07 Nov 2008, at 18:53, Tom Caylor wrote:
Anna, OK, I understand.
Thomas, as another reference point
Thomas,
epistemic state of an agent, or in the proverbial 10-year-old's
words, knowledge of the state of affairs from a certain point of
view. This is the Bayesian interpretation of probability.
EVERYTHING happens can be interpreted as an expression in terms of
the frequentist interpretation of
Anna's explanation was from the frequentist side.
Gunther's was from the Bayesian side.
On Nov 7, 10:13 am, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thomas,
epistemic state of an agent, or in the proverbial 10-year-old's
words, knowledge of the state of affairs from a certain point of
view
the Plenitude or Plotinus' One, both of which are
impersonal. By the way, the personal God is the only one in whom a
person can possibly believe, but that could be another topic.)
Tom
On Nov 7, 10:31 am, A. Wolf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 12:16 PM, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED
My interpretation/intent of my below statement is a simple logically
consistent statement, akin to saying that a person's subjective point
of view is subjective, or more closely, a person's point of view is
personal (i.e. from the point of view of a person), or 1+1=2. Not all
absolutist
I like this topic. I will think about it a little first.
By the way, is your use of blue and red a metaphor for Obama and
McCain? ;)
Tom
On Nov 7, 10:44 am, A. Wolf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But this begs the question What is EVERYTHING?
I would say the class of all mathematical models
logically impossible.)
On Nov 7, 11:05 am, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My interpretation/intent of my below statement is a simple logically
consistent statement, akin to saying that a person's subjective point
of view is subjective, or more closely, a person's point of view is
personal
On Nov 7, 11:11 am, A. Wolf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 1:05 PM, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My interpretation/intent of my below statement is a simple logically
consistent statement, akin to saying that a person's subjective point
of view is subjective
On Nov 7, 10:44 am, A. Wolf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But this begs the question What is EVERYTHING?
I would say the class of all mathematical models which are not
self-contradictory constitutes everything. I'd even go so far as to
suggest that's exactly what existence is, in a literal
about your motivations ...
(Holiday jokes :)
Bruno
Tom
On Aug 12, 8:30 am, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 09 Aug 2008, at 09:44, Tom Caylor wrote:
I believe that nature is not primarily functional. It is primarily
beautiful.
And this from a theist? Yes
:30 am, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 09 Aug 2008, at 09:44, Tom Caylor wrote:
I believe that nature is not primarily functional. It is primarily
beautiful.
And this from a theist? Yes! This is actually to the core point of
why I am a theist. I don't blame people
On Aug 10, 7:38 am, John Mikes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tom, please see after your quoted text.
John M
On Sat, Aug 9, 2008 at 3:44 AM, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I believe that nature is not primarily functional. It is primarily
beautiful.
And this from a theist? Yes
Just to be clear, I was not equating God and the knowable
fundamental Truth/Essence of Everything. I was just noting that my
statements work with either one.
On Aug 10, 11:51 pm, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Aug 10, 7:38 am, John Mikes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tom, please see
See below.
On Aug 11, 7:48 am, John Mikes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tom, (no further reply from here into your turf)
I usually keep away from discussing (GOD-) religious domains - now I am 'in'
and want to redirect my previous post.
Please: put GOD into the first part of my post, instead of
I believe that nature is not primarily functional. It is primarily
beautiful.
And this from a theist? Yes! This is actually to the core point of
why I am a theist. I don't blame people for not believing in God if
they think God is about functionality.
Tom
On Jul 29, 2:20 am, [EMAIL
Ronald,
Of course the main constraints are your audience, Star Trek fans, who
usually like talking about frontiers of physics and even mind/body
problem issues etc., but also your own background (I don't know what
it is) prompts the audience to adjust their level of attention based
on whether
On Jun 8, 2:43 pm, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 06 Jun 2008, at 23:35, Tom Caylor wrote:
...
One consistent configuration is that we are all immortal and that part
of this immortal being is something that is outside of what we can
observe scientifically, including other
Welcome.
I see that you use the word intention several times. It seems that
this is the word/notion on which your tries pivot, and I think this is
also the downfall. I think that intention is a very good part of
reality, but it can find its meaning only when coupled with the
humility that we
all the default assumptions:
obviously (?) science per se is totally agnostic about any first
person experience, knowledge ...)
On 06 Jun 2008, at 01:44, Tom Caylor wrote:
Why is it that from my first person perspective other people die?
Perhaps a different question:
Why
argue that from a
relational ontology perspective that would be equivalent to non-
existence. How about an immortal life in relation to other persons?
Tom
On Jun 6, 2:13 pm, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Assuming comp, or quantum immortality, is it true that from my
perspective I
Why is it that from my first person perspective other people die?
Perhaps a different question:
Why is it that from your first person perspective other people die?
Tom
On Jun 5, 8:27 am, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Lawrence, welcome,
You have to be more precise on the betting
On Apr 22, 6:26 am, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2008/4/22 Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Your external event is part of what I was referring to as out
there. I would argue for the consistency and the merits of the view
that our identity is tied not only to our brains
John,
I maintain that we all, whether we admit it or not, are doing more
than simply building our life history in a constructive way (in the
mathematical sense, sorry), bit by bit, from one observer moment to
the next based only one a logical progression from remembered observer
moments. This
Russell Standish wrote:
On Sun, Apr 20, 2008 at 08:25:56PM -0700, Brent Meeker wrote:
Does that mean that if I don't remember it, it didn't happen?
No it means it did/didn't happen until such a time as a measurement
indicates which. When it does, there will be two of you in different
Tom Caylor wrote:
Russell Standish wrote:
On Sun, Apr 20, 2008 at 08:25:56PM -0700, Brent Meeker wrote:
Does that mean that if I don't remember it, it didn't happen?
No it means it did/didn't happen until such a time as a measurement
indicates which. When it does
On Apr 21, 8:56 pm, Russell Standish [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 07:56:33PM -0700, Brent Meeker wrote:
Russell Standish wrote:
On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 06:10:52PM -0700, Brent Meeker wrote:
What if my parents are named Riley and Mae and my birthdate is 1939, but
On Apr 20, 3:00 am, Günther Greindl [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Your identity must be preserved as your brain continues to expand to make
room for all that informaton that must be stored. Now, I find it hard to
Why should all the info be stored/your id. be preserved?
We constantly forget
email
addresses and re-registered as [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tom Caylor) after
that.
By the way, near the end of one of our discussions on Plonitus'
hypostases, you said that what I was saying was the same thing as
Augustine. I just wanted to let you know that I didn't get it from
Augustine, I somehow
On Feb 22, 7:32 am, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I reassure you: I think that
was exceptional! Presently I am not so lucky because I have been break
in yesterday, and my home computer has been stolen with all the
attached devices including the main backup disk. I will have to
On Jan 2, 9:47 pm, Gevin Giorbran [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Three years of college, no degrees, no status. Left school and started
writing, and authored three books about the existence and structure of
all possible universes, including Exploring A Many Worlds Universe
in 1997, arguing as the
On Oct 25, 3:25 am, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Le 25-oct.-07, à 03:25, Wei Dai a écrit :
Rolf Nelson wrote:
An example
that Yudowsky gave: you might spend resources on constructing a unique
arrow pointing at yourself, in order to increase your measure by
making it easier
On Aug 9, 11:58 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Aug 9, 11:47 pm, Scipione [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Marc,
I knew this puzzle quite well; i tried to order it but i have some
trouble
obtaining it (i'm italian and as you can readhttp://uk.eternityii.com/
Italy isn't included in the
On Aug 23, 8:41 am, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Aug 9, 11:58 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Aug 9, 11:47 pm, Scipione [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Marc,
I knew this puzzle quite well; i tried to order it but i have some
trouble
obtaining it (i'm italian and as you can
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Aug 24, 3:46 am, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think I will spend my limited time and energy on the decaying earth
doing other things. Without even knowing much about the puzzle other
than reading the puzzle description, my guess is that without
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 08-juin-07, à 20:17, Tom Caylor a écrit :
I should respond to your response. I'm in a busy pensive state
lately, reading Theaetetus (as you suggested on the Incompleteness
thread) along with Protagoras and some Aristotle (along with the dozen
other books I'm
On Jun 12, 3:35 am, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Le 11-juin-07, à 08:05, Tom Caylor a écrit :
On Jun 10, 5:10 am, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
After Godel, Lob, I do think that comp is the best we can hope to
save the notion of consciousness, free
On Jun 10, 5:10 am, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
After Godel, Lob, I do think that comp is the best we can hope to
save the notion of consciousness, free will, responsibility, qualia,
(first)-persons, and many notions like that. Tthe only price: the
notion of matter
On May 25, 6:55 am, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Le 25-mai-07, à 02:39, Tom Caylor a écrit :
On May 16, 8:17 am, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
0) historical background
ARISTOTLE: reality = what you see
PLATO: what you see = shadows of shadows of shadows
On Jun 4, 11:50 pm, Torgny Tholerus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tom Caylor skrev:
I think that IF a computer were conscious (I don't believe it is
possible), then the way we could know it is conscious would not be by
interviewing it with questions and looking for the right answers.
We
On Jun 5, 7:12 am, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Le 03-juin-07, à 21:52, Hal Finney a écrit :
Part of what I wanted to get at in my thought experiment is the
bafflement and confusion an AI should feel when exposed to human ideas
about consciousness. Various people here have
On Jun 3, 12:52 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Hal Finney) wrote:
Part of what I wanted to get at in my thought experiment is the
bafflement and confusion an AI should feel when exposed to human ideas
about consciousness. Various people here have proffered their own
ideas, and we might assume that
On Mar 10, 2:34 am, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 3/10/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mar 7, 1:52 am, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 3/7/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why wouldn't the *whole* of such a Plenitude be truly
On Mar 8, 4:14 pm, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 3/9/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
You could replace love with chocolate and God with the
chocolate
fairy. You can claim that while the reason people like chocolate can
On Mar 7, 1:52 am, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 3/7/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why wouldn't the *whole* of such a Plenitude be truly superfluous to
any reality? According to Bruno's recursion theory argument, most of
the stuff in the Plenitude is useless
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 3/7/07, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 3/7/07, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tom Caylor wrote:
I agree with the Russell quote as it stands. Unendingness is not what
gives meaning. The source of meaning is not living
On Mar 5, 4:52 pm, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 3/6/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mar 2, 4:54 am, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 3/2/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
God would be outside of the plenitude, and thus would break
On Mar 1, 8:17 pm, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tom Caylor wrote:
On Feb 26, 4:33 pm, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2/27/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The thing that is different in this realm of true morality is that the
Creator is a person that we
On Mar 6, 5:19 pm, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tom Caylor wrote:
A source that has given us the crusades and 9/11 as well as the sister's
of mercy. No a very sufficient source if nobody can agree on what it
provides.
I don't like simply saying That isn't so, but nobody can
On Mar 6, 6:07 am, Russell Standish [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Mar 06, 2007 at 02:55:40PM -0800, Tom Caylor wrote:
You seem to be saying there are only two options. Either God IS the
plenitude (i.e. the set of all possible universes, leaving aside the
meaning of possible for now
On Mar 2, 4:54 am, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 3/2/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
God would be outside of the plenitude, and thus would break the
meaning/moral circularity inherent in the plenitude, breaking its
symmetry of meaningless whiteness/blackness
On Mar 2, 9:11 am, 1Z [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2 Mar, 11:54, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 3/2/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
God would be outside of the plenitude, and thus would break the
meaning/moral circularity inherent in the plenitude, breaking its
On Mar 1, 5:26 am, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 3/1/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But you're seeking to break out of this circularity by introducing God,
who
doesn't need a creator, designer, source of meaning or morality,
containing
these qualities
On Feb 23, 3:59 am, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2/23/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My point in quoting Kronecker was to simply to allude to the fact that
the foundations of mathematics are axiomatic in a similar way that
ultimate meaning is ultimate. We have
On Feb 23, 8:51 pm, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2/24/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I agree that positivists don't like metaphysics, and they actually
don't believe in it either. The problem with this is that science is
ultimately based on (and is inescapably
On Feb 20, 3:47 am, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2/20/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ultimate meaning is analogous to axioms or arithmetic truth (e.g. 42
is not prime). In fact the famous quote of Kronecker God created the
integers makes this point. I think
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 2/18/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Feb 16, 8:18 am, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you built a model society and set its citizens instincts, goals,
laws-from-heaven (but really from you) and so on, would that suffice
On Feb 19, 4:00 pm, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2/20/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
These are positivist questions. This is your basic error in this
whole post (and previous ones). These questions are assuming that
positivism is the right way of viewing
On Feb 13, 11:35 pm, Jesse Mazer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tom Caylor wrote:
I'm talking about ultimate meaning, meaning which is ultimately based
on truth. Purpose would go along with that. I think that this
situation is similar (metaphysically isomorphic? :) to the primary
matter
Brent Meeker wrote:
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 2/12/07, *Tom Caylor* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Tom Caylor writes:
Brent Meeker
It does not matter now that in a million
On Feb 13, 5:18 pm, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tom Caylor wrote:
Brent Meeker wrote:
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 2/12/07, *Tom Caylor* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Tom Caylor writes:
Brent Meeker It does not matter
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Tom Caylor writes:
Brent Meeker
It does not matter now that in a million years nothing we do now
will matter.
--- Thomas Nagel
We might like to believe Nagel, but it isn't true.
Tom
That is, it isn't true that in a million years
On Feb 6, 10:25 pm, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tom Caylor wrote:
I'm saying that there is no meaning at all if there is no ultimate
meaning.
So you say. I see no reason to believe it.
Again, I haven't just pulled this out of thin air. If you
really read the modern
On Feb 6, 11:20 pm, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Feb 6, 10:25 pm, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tom Caylor wrote:
I'm saying that there is no meaning at all if there is no ultimate
meaning.
So you say. I see no reason to believe it.
Again, I haven't just
On Jan 31, 10:33 am, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
OK. But in that case your question is just half of the question, Why do
people have values? If you have values then that mean some things will be
good and some will be bad - a weed is just a flower in a place you don't want
it.
On Jan 27, 7:50�am, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Le 26-janv.-07, � 19:00, Tom Caylor a �crit :
Why do we need to eliminate first-person white rabbits? �For purposes
of science, is not elimination of third-person (or first-person plural)
white rabbits sufficient?
That would
On Jan 26, 9:22 am, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Also, I still don't understand how you will avoid the white rabbits.
By extracting the physical laws from some 1-person machine measure.
This one can be extracted from some interview of an honest
self-observing machine. Well, to
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Tom Caylor writes:
So you believe that the Qur'an is the literal word of God? What I was
hoping is that
you would say Muhammed was deluded or lying, so that the Qur'an is at best
an
impressive piece of literature with some interesting moral teachings: i.e
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Tom Caylor wrote:
So the solution to the problem of evil *starts* with the theological
solution, as I said above, the solution to the separation between us
and who we really are meant to be. Since we were made in the image
Bruno Marchal wrote:
OK. Now, if you accept, if only just for the sake of the argument, the
mechanist hypothesis, then you will see there could be an explanation
why you feel necessary to postulate such a personal God. But then I
must agree this explanation is more coherent with
Tom Caylor wrote:
So the solution to the problem of evil *starts* with the theological
solution, as I said above, the solution to the separation between us
and who we really are meant to be. Since we were made in the image of
the personal God, then with the G(Logos) we can be brought
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Tom Caylor wrote:
So the solution to the problem of evil *starts* with the theological
solution, as I said above, the solution to the separation between us
and who we really are meant to be. Since we were made in the image of
the personal God
Tom Caylor wrote:
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Tom Caylor wrote:
So the solution to the problem of evil *starts* with the theological
solution, as I said above, the solution to the separation between us
and who we really are meant to be. Since we were made in the image
Brent Meeker wrote:
Tom Caylor wrote:
I tried to address everything but ran out of time/energy. If there is
something I deleted from a previous post that I cut out that you wanted
me to address, just bring it back up.
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 26-d c.-06, 19:54, Tom Caylor a crit
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Tom Caylor writes (quoting Bruno Marchal):
[TC]
My whole argument is that without it our hope eventually runs out and
we are left with despair, unless we lie to ourselves against the
absence of hope.
[BM]
Here Stathis already give a genuine comment. You
I'll make this a new topic. It's the same as my post on the older
topic.
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Tom Caylor writes (quoting Bruno Marchal):
[TC]
My whole argument is that without it our hope eventually runs out and
we are left with despair, unless we lie to ourselves against
I tried to address everything but ran out of time/energy. If there is
something I deleted from a previous post that I cut out that you wanted
me to address, just bring it back up.
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 26-d c.-06, 19:54, Tom Caylor a crit :
On Dec 26, 9:51 am, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL
On Dec 26, 9:51 am, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Le 25-déc.-06, à 01:13, Tom Caylor a écrit :
The crux is that he is not symbolic...
I respect your belief or faith, but I want to be frank, I have no
evidences for the idea that Jesus is truth, nor can I be sure of
any clear
that provide evidence
for an invariant reality and truth, not necessarily freedom of will,
but something. And I think that looking for ultimate sources would be
circular (as you've said on the Atheist List) only if there were no
ultimate source that we could find. Do you agree with this statement?
Tom
On Dec 26, 7:53 pm, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tom Caylor wrote:
On Dec 26, 3:59 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I regard the idea of believing to be unsound, because it is a
pre-Freudian concept, which assumes that each person has a single
self that maintains
Bruno,
I have been doing a lot of reading/thinking on your former posts on the
Hypostases, other reading on Plotinus and the neo-Platonist hypostases,
and the Christian interpretation of the hypostases. There is a lot
to say, but I'll start by just giving some responses to your last post
on
On Dec 24, 3:49 am, Stathis Papaioannou
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tom Caylor writes:
Bruno,
I have been doing a lot of reading/thinking on your former posts on the
Hypostases, other reading on Plotinus and the neo-Platonist hypostases,
and the Christian interpretation of the hypostases
It looks like I might have timed out. Hopefully this doesn't appear
two times.
On Dec 24, 8:55 am, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Le 24-déc.-06, à 09:48, Tom Caylor a écrit :
Bruno,
...
I believe the answer to the question, What is Truth? which Pilate asked
Jesus, was standing
1Z wrote:
Tom Caylor wrote:
One thing Schaeffer did was remind us that the assumptions of nature
and cause were foundational to modern science.
More prevalent on the Christian Right is the Dominionist idea, shared
by Reconstructionists, that Christians alone are Biblically mandated
true.
Stathis Papaioannou
Stathis,
You asked a similar question before:
Tom Caylor writes:
But as somewhat of an idealist, I strive to make everything
whole, integrate beliefs and works, and live in integrity (same root as
integer). So I understand that tension between idealism and real
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 04-déc.-06, à 08:34, Tom Caylor wrote :
The existence of a personal God who is not silent answers the questions
in a way that an impersonal god or reality does not...
I certainly have a methodological problem with such an idea. This is
due to my motivation
Brent Meeker wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Hi Stathis,
What you haven't really addressed in this post is the PR implications
if you use the
word theology prominently in your writing. You will alienate many
scientists and
academic philosophers even though this may be due to
Brent Meeker wrote:
Tom Caylor wrote:
OK. I'll take the belief out of it for your convenience.
1) If the infinite personal God of love exists this makes it possible
for me to take my eyes off of myself, by looking at God (granted that
such a thing is allowed). (not done yet)
2
Tom Caylor wrote:
(Schaeffer's phrase Is Not Silent is an answer to Wittengenstein's
famous quote.)
Sorry, Wittgenstein. I must have had Witten on the brane ;)
Regarding Bruno's use of the word 'theology', I agree with Brent that
it is unconventional to the point of targeting the wrong
Hal Ruhl wrote:
I have tried to find material discussing the following idea but have
not found any yet so I would appreciate comments.
The idea is based in the description of objects.
It was recently pointed out to me as being an aspect of my model by
Alastair Malcolm.
The idea is
Tom Caylor wrote:
Hal Ruhl wrote:
I have tried to find material discussing the following idea but have
not found any yet so I would appreciate comments.
The idea is based in the description of objects.
It was recently pointed out to me as being an aspect of my model by
Alastair
Mark Peaty wrote:
Nice try Colin! :-)
and very thought provoking, as are all the contributions of yours which
I have read on various discussion groups.
Here though I think your assumptions are driving your conclusions and
you beg some of the questions you seem to be assuming that you are
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Tom Cayolor writes:
Schaeffer maintained that the basis for antithesis is not that it was
an invention of Aristotle or anyone, but that the basis for antithesis
is reality itself, based on the God who is there (as opposed to not
being there). The
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Tom Caylor writes:
I agree (with the proviso that I suppose that by machine you talk
about the old pregodelian conception of (non universal) machine.
We don't know what universal machine are capable of, and I don't see
why a present God would abandon them
1 - 100 of 202 matches
Mail list logo
